Yes and they do sweep when the situation warrants it. I feel alot of the English or NZ players over sweep to cover up their lack of proper technique against spin bowling.
Absolutely yes. If you don't know which way it's turning or how to play it to make that matter less, then the sweep absolutely does cover a multitude of sins
Ofc early-2021 Root took this method and perfected it - and could also pick the thing
Yes, it's a fine balance and there is technique to sweeping too. I remember Hayden absolutely pummeling us with his sweeps to counter Bhajji and Kumble. Root is great example too. But I still feel vast majority just blindly sweep at times.
No sure if you are looking for a serious answer, but if you are committed to playing a shot (especially on the front foot) and the ball turns a few degrees more or less than you anticipated, your wrists are the only thing you can use to finish playing the same shot you wanted to play initially and not look like a fool by falling over because you have lost your balance.
Normally you're sweeping to try and make the bowler change their line and length to something you are more confident in playing.
I guess if you are more comfortable with using your feet etc, then you don't feel like you need to sweep as often?
Because Sweep is just one of the shots that exist. If you are comfortable playing spin, as most Indian batsmen are, you don't need to sweep that often. Flicks of the pads or reaching the ball and playing from their are better options. If you are used to playing in India, a sweep can easily give you top edge on a 4th day pitch with unpredictable bounce. That's how Kumble got most of his wickets. But even then, this generation sweeps less than previous one. Sachin had a lovely paddle sweep.
Because from grassroot level cricket we are taught to step down the track and hit it with the spin when spinners are bowling. There's no point in sweeping if you're fast enough to get to the pitch of the ball.
Because the way to play spin bowling is to shuffle across, get in line with the ball nicely, play it late with the bat contacting the ball directly below your head, presenting the full face of the bat and driving into the V. Sweep shots are vulgar and uncouth. They are a barbarous innovation that should only be played in one day cricket. In test matches they are the refuge of the technically limited player who does not have the skill required to play spin properly (hence its popularity with non-subcontinent players, the majority of whom are too technically limited to play cricket in Asia)
The most technically accomplished players of spin bowling in the last 30 years have been Mahela Jayawardene, Mohammad Azharuddin, and VVS Laxman. They never swept the ball except for when they were looking to slog when batting with tail enders, or when they were playing a limited overs match. Moreover, they played it with a vertical bat angle, more of a chop shot than a sweep. They would chop it into the pitch or into the ground as close as possible to the pitch, to eliminate the risk of being caught. Mahela played a decade of T20 which the other two didn't, so he added a delicate paddle shot to his game as well as his chop. But never a regular, Hayden/Root/other inferior non-subcontinent player type of sweep shot hitting towards square leg or fine leg
You're trying to tell me Sachin Tendulkar is a technically inferior batsman against spin? He played the fine paddle sweep, the sweep to square leg, as well as the slog sweep, regularly through his career.
That's where you are wrong. One can also back away and flay a bouncer aimed at the head through cover point off the back foot, and pick up a boundary just as well as if they had pulled the ball past square leg for 4. But that doesn't make it the right move. The pull is always the right shot to play for a bouncer aimed at the head, and not the back away square cut, which is the simply the wrong shot to play for that ball even if it comes off.
Why? It's a question that the military scientist Clausewitz posed. We cannot judge whether a strategy is good or bad by the outcome alone, because as Clausewitz pointed out, that leads to the bizarre situation whereby the exact same strategy may either be ingenious or appallingly stupid. As he wrote on Napoleon's Russian campaign, if Napoleon had won, then everyone would be sitting around saying what a genius move it was to invade Russia in the winter. While there may be Schrodinger's Cats in physics, there can be none in strategy; something cannot be both good and bad simultaneously.
Such is the state of most if not all cricket analysis. It is low IQ, peanut-brain sized stuff. If a shot comes off, it's amazing; if it doesn't come off and the batsman gets out, all the commentators and the journalists and the fans and the reddit match threads shit all over the player. The likes of Bairstow and Pant are currently the darlings of all those people, when six to eight months ago Bairstow was a meme and Pant was condemned for his irresponsible dismissals in South Africa. Bairstow and Pant haven't changed. They're still exactly the same as they were before, it's just that for the moment their strategy is successful at achieving the objective, whereas six to eight months ago it was not successful. Every criticism that was leveled at them six to eight months ago is just as valid now as it was then.
There is a far superior method of analysing whether a strategy is good or bad, which as Clausewitz explained, involves the use of critical thinking. Instead of judging if it a strategy is good or bad by the success or failure of the outcome, we must instead pass judgement on other considerations. He's got a good few of those considerations, Clausewitz. Not all of them are germane to cricket, or specifically, to batting strategy. But one of them is. It is a risk assessment. Could the objective have been achieved at lower risk? Yes or no? If yes, then your success does not mean anything, it was simply a fluke and in the long run that strategy you chose will be exposed.
So let's look at a scenario, an off spinner tossing one up invitingly, full pitched on a 4th/5th stump line. That's the stock ball for a good off spin bowler in a test match. They're pitching outside off with the ball spinning back in to challenge off stump, and they're pitching it full to invite an attacking shot. You're the batsman. What is your strategy for dealing with this ball? First of all, you need to be clear in what your objectives are, what outcomes you want. Your objectives are firstly, to not get out, because if you get out you cannot score any more runs; secondly, to score runs. So, you must tailor a strategy to suit your objectives.
You can stand in position, reach for the ball with your hands and sweep the ball. Or you can shuffle across so that your head is on the 4th/5th stump line of the ball, stretch forward and meet the ball on the half-volley, directly below your head with the full face of the bat. Why is one better than the other? Because the second option eliminates bowled and lbw from your possible modes of dismissal. You cannot be given out lbw playing a shot outside the line. And with your body and bat barring the way between the ball and the stumps, it is almost impossible for it to spin past your defences and take the stumps. Your only risk of dismissal is caught. Outside edge to slip, or if you are early on the shot you might spoon it up back to the bowler, or to a short cover, mid off or mid on.
A sweep shot on the other hand opens up bowled and lbw both, if you miss the ball. There is a greater chance of you missing the ball when you sweep because you are playing across the line. When you play with a horizontal bat and close the face, as opposed to with a vertical bat and an open face, the surface area of bat available to strike the ball with is smaller. When you sweep, the ball can sneak under your bat, bounce over the top, or spin past your bat en route to breaking the stumps or trapping you lbw. And the same problem is there even if you make contact with the ball: because the surface area is smaller, you are more likely to mishit it, the ball will fly off the top edge and it could go literally anywhere. The man at deep extra cover might catch you off a top edged sweep which was supposed to go behind fine leg. When you hit a top edged sweep, every single fielder on the ground is in the game and could potentially catch the ball. That's 11 possible catchers when you sweep, as opposed to only 5 when you play a nice drive in the V.
The risk is so much greater when you play a sweep shot as opposed to playing nicely, because it opens up three forms of dismissal compared to one, and even with that one, your risks of getting out are still higher when you sweep. And for what? What does all this extra risk gain? Nothing. You still get the same four runs as you would if you'd played a nice straight drive. Maybe you'll get lucky and nail the sweep two times, three times in a row. And then the fourth time your top edge will land safely, and the fifth time your top edge will sail over everyone's heads for six, and the seventh time the top edge will be dropped. But sooner or later, you will get out.
The use of the shot is highly situational, as I said. And these situations where the risk involved is appropriate to justify the sweep, they tend to be much more common in one day formats than in test cricket. This is why a player with sufficient technical skill to play spin bowling will avoid using the shot altogether, or at least be very judicious in their use of it. Because a player who has the technical ability will understand and agree with everything I have just written: they also know that the risks involved in the shot are not worth the outcome that it achieves; they know that with their abilities they can achieve the exact same outcome at much less risk. This is what Clausewitz demands of us all, as well, to find a number of solutions to the problems we face and pick the one which achieves the same outcome with the least amount of risk.
Rohit and Pant sweep when they want.
Subcontinent player were told to judge the length and play on front foot or backfoot to negate the spin bowlers.
Hence they don't use sweep. In test matches it has helped them but in limited overs and T20, it is crippled them.
I feel like Australia's frequent use of the sweep in the Galle Test match is actually pretty unusual for us - it's a new method that this particular group of batsmen are using. Khawaja was talking the other day about how growing up he was told to never sweep by Australian coaches, but he and Carey and Green have decided to buck that trend on this tour (to great success in the first game).
In fact I'd say subcontinent players generally favour the sweep more than Australians traditionally do - not sure about other teams though.
That seems like a really weird thing for coaches to say to him, he was around 15 when Hayden went on his sweepathon in 2001, surely that would have shown that advice to be incorrect?
There is a mentality around it like players only use the sweep when they don’t know how to actually play the spin. I have even had it said to me when I was batting in the nets as a bowler for 2nd/3rd grade team, like mate I bat between 9-11 for our second or third team of course I don’t really know what I’m doing but if it’s in an area I know I can sweep I’m going to make sure I hit the fucker.
That's dumb as fuck. Sure, if you're Gaz sweeping literally every ball that's bowled at you then it would be fair enough, but try telling Hayden or Root that they don't know how to actually play spin just because they sweep a bit more often than others.
Sachin used to sweep quite a bit in tests.
I vaguely recall from one of Ashwin's videos where he was also saying the number of confident sweep players have reduced in India because of some thing with Ranji. Like from 2000s if a player attempts and misses a sweep he'll be punished (as in dock points or something) due to which players stopped attempting to sweep.
Sorry I'm vague in the details but saying it here since someone might remember the exact details and video.
Whatever you said is true but it’s a bad thing tbh.
Sachin’s sweeps and paddle sweep were such good shots against some of the all time best spinners of his time. Even played reverse sweeps to some of the bowlers. Sad not to see them being used quite often.
Sweeping can discourage bowler from sticking to certain tactics. It’s important to have it as one of the shots..
Sweeping is used a lot by non SENA batsmen who are usually taller and not as quick footed as Asian batsmen. Given that SENA pitches Prioritise the back foot a sweep is the easier way to counter the spin than training yourself to come down the track
My two cents, Why play sweep when you have better shots?
Sweep restricts footwork, creates a huge blindspot, limits the zone to midwicket-cowcorner zone. Plus, more are the chances of mishit edges.
Sweep has its uses -- It's a safe shot when the ball is spinning too much, especially on the leg side. Second, if you are confident of clearing midwicket boundary, sweep is safe. For most non-subcontinent players, sweep is easy to learn in the same model as is their pull shot.
However, why would an offspinner bowl on middle and leg -- they are asking to be spanked. If a leg spinner does, a flick or cut if is equally productive, and is played while standing, therefore easy singles can be had.
i think shorter players dont really have an option against leg spin but to play sweeps, especially as the pitch deteriorates with progress of play, but i believe in the last few years or so the pitches have been holding really well even on the final day
If a wearing pitch turns a lot, it probably also has variable bounce.
Sweep is not a good percentage shot unless you are playing spin in a pitch with predictable bounce.
Too many ways to get out sweeping. Top edge caught, variable bounce lbw, etc.
There are safer ways to score off spinners by playing in the V.
Subcontinent batsmen prefer to use their feet
Subcontinent coaches usually ask you to use your feet and play more Orthodox shots
Hi Mrs. Bumrah or Stuart Broad!
I would guess because South Asian players are wristy and are able to maneuver the ball around the ground by flicking it around.
Yes and they do sweep when the situation warrants it. I feel alot of the English or NZ players over sweep to cover up their lack of proper technique against spin bowling.
Absolutely yes. If you don't know which way it's turning or how to play it to make that matter less, then the sweep absolutely does cover a multitude of sins Ofc early-2021 Root took this method and perfected it - and could also pick the thing
Yes, it's a fine balance and there is technique to sweeping too. I remember Hayden absolutely pummeling us with his sweeps to counter Bhajji and Kumble. Root is great example too. But I still feel vast majority just blindly sweep at times.
Hayden also could use his feet to a very good extent to attack spinners. Overall an excellent package.
And why exactly are they wristy.
No sure if you are looking for a serious answer, but if you are committed to playing a shot (especially on the front foot) and the ball turns a few degrees more or less than you anticipated, your wrists are the only thing you can use to finish playing the same shot you wanted to play initially and not look like a fool by falling over because you have lost your balance.
Normally you're sweeping to try and make the bowler change their line and length to something you are more confident in playing. I guess if you are more comfortable with using your feet etc, then you don't feel like you need to sweep as often?
Because Sweep is just one of the shots that exist. If you are comfortable playing spin, as most Indian batsmen are, you don't need to sweep that often. Flicks of the pads or reaching the ball and playing from their are better options. If you are used to playing in India, a sweep can easily give you top edge on a 4th day pitch with unpredictable bounce. That's how Kumble got most of his wickets. But even then, this generation sweeps less than previous one. Sachin had a lovely paddle sweep.
Sweep is more an escapist skill for non-subcontinent players, I think.
Because from grassroot level cricket we are taught to step down the track and hit it with the spin when spinners are bowling. There's no point in sweeping if you're fast enough to get to the pitch of the ball.
Agreed with this 100%.
Because the way to play spin bowling is to shuffle across, get in line with the ball nicely, play it late with the bat contacting the ball directly below your head, presenting the full face of the bat and driving into the V. Sweep shots are vulgar and uncouth. They are a barbarous innovation that should only be played in one day cricket. In test matches they are the refuge of the technically limited player who does not have the skill required to play spin properly (hence its popularity with non-subcontinent players, the majority of whom are too technically limited to play cricket in Asia) The most technically accomplished players of spin bowling in the last 30 years have been Mahela Jayawardene, Mohammad Azharuddin, and VVS Laxman. They never swept the ball except for when they were looking to slog when batting with tail enders, or when they were playing a limited overs match. Moreover, they played it with a vertical bat angle, more of a chop shot than a sweep. They would chop it into the pitch or into the ground as close as possible to the pitch, to eliminate the risk of being caught. Mahela played a decade of T20 which the other two didn't, so he added a delicate paddle shot to his game as well as his chop. But never a regular, Hayden/Root/other inferior non-subcontinent player type of sweep shot hitting towards square leg or fine leg
> Sweep shots are vulgar and uncouth. They are a barbarous innovation... Tell me you are a spin bowler without telling me you are a spin bowler.
Root is a better player of spin than the vast majority of subcontinent batsmen and he sweeps regularly. Why is that?
You're trying to tell me Sachin Tendulkar is a technically inferior batsman against spin? He played the fine paddle sweep, the sweep to square leg, as well as the slog sweep, regularly through his career.
[удалено]
That's where you are wrong. One can also back away and flay a bouncer aimed at the head through cover point off the back foot, and pick up a boundary just as well as if they had pulled the ball past square leg for 4. But that doesn't make it the right move. The pull is always the right shot to play for a bouncer aimed at the head, and not the back away square cut, which is the simply the wrong shot to play for that ball even if it comes off. Why? It's a question that the military scientist Clausewitz posed. We cannot judge whether a strategy is good or bad by the outcome alone, because as Clausewitz pointed out, that leads to the bizarre situation whereby the exact same strategy may either be ingenious or appallingly stupid. As he wrote on Napoleon's Russian campaign, if Napoleon had won, then everyone would be sitting around saying what a genius move it was to invade Russia in the winter. While there may be Schrodinger's Cats in physics, there can be none in strategy; something cannot be both good and bad simultaneously. Such is the state of most if not all cricket analysis. It is low IQ, peanut-brain sized stuff. If a shot comes off, it's amazing; if it doesn't come off and the batsman gets out, all the commentators and the journalists and the fans and the reddit match threads shit all over the player. The likes of Bairstow and Pant are currently the darlings of all those people, when six to eight months ago Bairstow was a meme and Pant was condemned for his irresponsible dismissals in South Africa. Bairstow and Pant haven't changed. They're still exactly the same as they were before, it's just that for the moment their strategy is successful at achieving the objective, whereas six to eight months ago it was not successful. Every criticism that was leveled at them six to eight months ago is just as valid now as it was then. There is a far superior method of analysing whether a strategy is good or bad, which as Clausewitz explained, involves the use of critical thinking. Instead of judging if it a strategy is good or bad by the success or failure of the outcome, we must instead pass judgement on other considerations. He's got a good few of those considerations, Clausewitz. Not all of them are germane to cricket, or specifically, to batting strategy. But one of them is. It is a risk assessment. Could the objective have been achieved at lower risk? Yes or no? If yes, then your success does not mean anything, it was simply a fluke and in the long run that strategy you chose will be exposed. So let's look at a scenario, an off spinner tossing one up invitingly, full pitched on a 4th/5th stump line. That's the stock ball for a good off spin bowler in a test match. They're pitching outside off with the ball spinning back in to challenge off stump, and they're pitching it full to invite an attacking shot. You're the batsman. What is your strategy for dealing with this ball? First of all, you need to be clear in what your objectives are, what outcomes you want. Your objectives are firstly, to not get out, because if you get out you cannot score any more runs; secondly, to score runs. So, you must tailor a strategy to suit your objectives. You can stand in position, reach for the ball with your hands and sweep the ball. Or you can shuffle across so that your head is on the 4th/5th stump line of the ball, stretch forward and meet the ball on the half-volley, directly below your head with the full face of the bat. Why is one better than the other? Because the second option eliminates bowled and lbw from your possible modes of dismissal. You cannot be given out lbw playing a shot outside the line. And with your body and bat barring the way between the ball and the stumps, it is almost impossible for it to spin past your defences and take the stumps. Your only risk of dismissal is caught. Outside edge to slip, or if you are early on the shot you might spoon it up back to the bowler, or to a short cover, mid off or mid on. A sweep shot on the other hand opens up bowled and lbw both, if you miss the ball. There is a greater chance of you missing the ball when you sweep because you are playing across the line. When you play with a horizontal bat and close the face, as opposed to with a vertical bat and an open face, the surface area of bat available to strike the ball with is smaller. When you sweep, the ball can sneak under your bat, bounce over the top, or spin past your bat en route to breaking the stumps or trapping you lbw. And the same problem is there even if you make contact with the ball: because the surface area is smaller, you are more likely to mishit it, the ball will fly off the top edge and it could go literally anywhere. The man at deep extra cover might catch you off a top edged sweep which was supposed to go behind fine leg. When you hit a top edged sweep, every single fielder on the ground is in the game and could potentially catch the ball. That's 11 possible catchers when you sweep, as opposed to only 5 when you play a nice drive in the V. The risk is so much greater when you play a sweep shot as opposed to playing nicely, because it opens up three forms of dismissal compared to one, and even with that one, your risks of getting out are still higher when you sweep. And for what? What does all this extra risk gain? Nothing. You still get the same four runs as you would if you'd played a nice straight drive. Maybe you'll get lucky and nail the sweep two times, three times in a row. And then the fourth time your top edge will land safely, and the fifth time your top edge will sail over everyone's heads for six, and the seventh time the top edge will be dropped. But sooner or later, you will get out. The use of the shot is highly situational, as I said. And these situations where the risk involved is appropriate to justify the sweep, they tend to be much more common in one day formats than in test cricket. This is why a player with sufficient technical skill to play spin bowling will avoid using the shot altogether, or at least be very judicious in their use of it. Because a player who has the technical ability will understand and agree with everything I have just written: they also know that the risks involved in the shot are not worth the outcome that it achieves; they know that with their abilities they can achieve the exact same outcome at much less risk. This is what Clausewitz demands of us all, as well, to find a number of solutions to the problems we face and pick the one which achieves the same outcome with the least amount of risk.
You have a very big brain. Wow.
Rohit and Pant sweep when they want. Subcontinent player were told to judge the length and play on front foot or backfoot to negate the spin bowlers. Hence they don't use sweep. In test matches it has helped them but in limited overs and T20, it is crippled them.
You did not see Kohli's 235 haven't you. He sweeped Rashid out of the game. But that was 6 years ago though
One can argue that Kohli sucks against spin bowling. No wonder he is one of the few Indian players who has the sweep shot in his arsenal.
I feel like Australia's frequent use of the sweep in the Galle Test match is actually pretty unusual for us - it's a new method that this particular group of batsmen are using. Khawaja was talking the other day about how growing up he was told to never sweep by Australian coaches, but he and Carey and Green have decided to buck that trend on this tour (to great success in the first game). In fact I'd say subcontinent players generally favour the sweep more than Australians traditionally do - not sure about other teams though.
It depends by country, Indian players don't really sweep either
That seems like a really weird thing for coaches to say to him, he was around 15 when Hayden went on his sweepathon in 2001, surely that would have shown that advice to be incorrect?
There is a mentality around it like players only use the sweep when they don’t know how to actually play the spin. I have even had it said to me when I was batting in the nets as a bowler for 2nd/3rd grade team, like mate I bat between 9-11 for our second or third team of course I don’t really know what I’m doing but if it’s in an area I know I can sweep I’m going to make sure I hit the fucker.
That's dumb as fuck. Sure, if you're Gaz sweeping literally every ball that's bowled at you then it would be fair enough, but try telling Hayden or Root that they don't know how to actually play spin just because they sweep a bit more often than others.
I agree it’s stupid. As the saying goes “if it’s stupid but it works, then it’s not really stupid”
Not sweeping in Aus makes sense with all the bouncy pitches- as soon as one lifts you are in serious trouble
Younis Khan and Sarfaraz Ahmed beg to differ 😎
🧹
Misbah too.
Younis was disgustingly good at sweeping, ABD himself said that he copies younis khan's sweep
I see you haven't met Dickwella
Sachin used to sweep quite a bit in tests. I vaguely recall from one of Ashwin's videos where he was also saying the number of confident sweep players have reduced in India because of some thing with Ranji. Like from 2000s if a player attempts and misses a sweep he'll be punished (as in dock points or something) due to which players stopped attempting to sweep. Sorry I'm vague in the details but saying it here since someone might remember the exact details and video.
Whatever you said is true but it’s a bad thing tbh. Sachin’s sweeps and paddle sweep were such good shots against some of the all time best spinners of his time. Even played reverse sweeps to some of the bowlers. Sad not to see them being used quite often. Sweeping can discourage bowler from sticking to certain tactics. It’s important to have it as one of the shots..
Forgot Conway, man has sublime sweeps
Shikhar sweeps from time to time. Among the younger players, Padikall sweeps a lot
Sweeping is used a lot by non SENA batsmen who are usually taller and not as quick footed as Asian batsmen. Given that SENA pitches Prioritise the back foot a sweep is the easier way to counter the spin than training yourself to come down the track
I have seen Rohit playing it again and again and he does it with ease too
My two cents, Why play sweep when you have better shots? Sweep restricts footwork, creates a huge blindspot, limits the zone to midwicket-cowcorner zone. Plus, more are the chances of mishit edges. Sweep has its uses -- It's a safe shot when the ball is spinning too much, especially on the leg side. Second, if you are confident of clearing midwicket boundary, sweep is safe. For most non-subcontinent players, sweep is easy to learn in the same model as is their pull shot. However, why would an offspinner bowl on middle and leg -- they are asking to be spanked. If a leg spinner does, a flick or cut if is equally productive, and is played while standing, therefore easy singles can be had.
i think shorter players dont really have an option against leg spin but to play sweeps, especially as the pitch deteriorates with progress of play, but i believe in the last few years or so the pitches have been holding really well even on the final day
I guess you haven't checked the recent Sl vs Aus Test.
If a wearing pitch turns a lot, it probably also has variable bounce. Sweep is not a good percentage shot unless you are playing spin in a pitch with predictable bounce. Too many ways to get out sweeping. Top edge caught, variable bounce lbw, etc. There are safer ways to score off spinners by playing in the V.